Talk:Pyx Lax

Suggested move to "Pix Lax"

I suggest this article be renamed from "Pyx Lux" to "Pix Lax". As per WP:NAME this is the latin-alphabet spelling used by Filippos Pliatsikas on http://www.pliatsikas.com (select Discography: Personal and hold your mouse in the middle of the bottom of the screen to scroll down until the Πυξ Λαξ albums appear, if you want to confirm). The only other currently-referenced website in English also uses the "Pix Lax" spelling: http://pixlax.20fr.com/

Out of interest, in descending order as at 16 Dec 2009:

Search phrase	Google hits
"Pix Lax"	59,600	← What I'm suggesting we move to
"Pyx Lax"	51,900
"Pix Lux"	25,300
"Pux Lax"	9,180
"Pyx Lux"	1,050	← What we're currently using

Note that I'm suggesting on the talk page out of politeness (as opposed to not being bold due to laziness).

If agreed, this name change should be carried through the text of other pages. See: Special:WhatLinksHere/Pyx_Lux

-Stelio (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your politeness is appreciated, but I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. "Lax" in English sounds quite different to Λαξ in Greek, and has associations in English that ought to be considered undesirable. The spelling I have used reflects the Greek pronunciation. I think that Pyx Lux both looks and sounds good in English. I can't say the same for "Pix Lax". I'm not sure that the Google evidence strengthens your suggestion. In time a standard accepted form will emerge, but I don't think that time has come. One last point, if we are to reflect the Greek pronunciation in the English transliteration, then only Pyx Lux or Pix Lux would be acceptable. Your suggestion is inconsistent in that it follows the pronunciation in the rendering of Pix, but the spelling in the rendering of Lax. Pavlos Andronikos (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't agree with you about the relative pronunciations. To clarify my point of view here, I am bilingual in (British) English and Greek, and to my ear "Πυξ Λαξ" sounds like /piks laks/ (using IPA notation). When you write "Lux" do you mean the vowel to be a schwa? (If so, then various vowels have been used in English in different words to denote that sound, as shown on that Wikipedia page.) I have always taken an α to be a very clear /a/ sound which could only be reasonably written as "a" in English (that is to say, I am still following the pronunciation rather than the spelling). How does "Πυξ Λαξ" sound to you in IPA?

You mention the idea of a standard form. Surely the de facto standard must be considered to be the way it is written by the artists themselves. In which case Filippos Pliatsikas shows us on his website very clearly that he considers "Pix Lax" to be correct. My CDs are currently in storage whilst I work overseas, but if I get the opportunity (some time in the next few months) I will check them for English transliterations as well (certainly Χαρούμενοι στην πόλη των τρελών has a reversible title so that one can switch it between Greek and English).

As an aside, to answer one of your other points: undesirability of association should be secondary to accuracy. Many names have different meanings in other languages, but we still use the correct names. A Chevrolet Nova is still called the same on Spanish Wikipedia even though "no va" means "doesn't go" in Spanish, for example.

Now, we have a policy on naming conventions for Wikipedia. Following that policy:

• We should use the common name for the subject. "In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." In this particular case, the only referenced sources that use an English name both use "Pix Lax" as I stated above.
• If you wish to disregard the referenced sources: "If there are too few English sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject." Wikipedia also has specific guidelines on naming conventions for Greek. Under these guidelines, a transliteration of "Πυξ Λαξ" should be written as one of: "Pyx Lax", "Pix Lax", "Pyks Laks", "Piks Laks".

-Stelio (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies: I forgot to add that my use of Google to establish relative popularities of transliterations is a standard procedure on Wikipedia. It is mentioned at Wikipedia:Name#Common names, and more specifically at Wikipedia:Search engine test. Obviously the results of such tests are not binding, but are helpful in comparing certain phrasings. In this particular case, it is helpful to show that "Pyx Lux" is very definitely not a common usage relative to other spellings, and so should not be considered the common name. -Stelio (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Response 2

According to J. T. Pring (The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Greek, p. xii), modern Greek α is pronounced like the u in butt, and he is right. If you ask a native speaker of standard English to write out what s/he hears when a Greek pronounces the word Λαξ, s/he writes Lux. Similarly, if you ask a native speaker of standard Greek to write out what s/he hears when an English speaker says the word Lux, s/he writes Λαξ.

However native Greek speakers do not always appreciate the fact that the Greek α needs to be rendered with a u in English in order to achieve a similar pronunciation, hence, I suspect, the use of Lax on the Pliatsikas web site. Whether it is Pliatsikas’ rendering or that of an employee one cannot know.

Traditionally Greek words are transliterated according to a system based on ancient Greek. In that system υ becomes y, and α becomes a. (e.g., psyche, Cyclades, Plato). The pronunciation in English then seems to follow the Greek-derived English spelling, rather than the original Greek pronunciation. The traditional system would in this case give us Pyx Lax, but Lax would be pronounced like the English word lax, and would not sound much like the Greek word.

If however we base our rendering of the band’s name on the way it is pronounced in Greek, we would have to render it Pix Lux. (I note that you got 26350 hits for Lux, which is hardly a paltry figure given the tendency of many to assume that the Greek alpha is pronounced much like English a.) The only point of dispute would then be whether to use Pix or Pyx. I figured that most English speakers would pronounce Pyx as Pix, therefore I decided to keep the y, but I do not have strong feelings on this. I just like the fact that Pyx reflects the spelling of the Greek as well as giving the right pronunciation.

To sum up, the justifiable options are: Pyx Lax (trad. transliteration based on ancient, not modern Greek), and Pix Lux or Pyx Lux (based on pronunciation). I can see no justification for Pix Lax.

I do not place too much faith in the Google results because I have seen in doing research for this article that most references to Pyx Lux are ill informed, and/or simply a repetition of what appears on other web sites.

By the way, I too am bilingual, and my English is native British English. I note that there are many levels of bilinguality. I know numerous people of Greek origin in England who claim to be bilingual but in fact have only a very basic knowledge of everyday spoken Greek and little else. Moreover often their Greek pronunciation has been influenced by English.--Pavlos Andronikos (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. :-)

I am fully aware that Greek lacks a character that is specifically intended to represent a schwa, and so the English "Lux" would we written as "Λαξ" in Greek. But I remain unconvinced that this is true in the other direction: that the Greek "Λαξ" would be written as "Lux" in English. Every Greek (other than yourself) that I speak to pronounces α as an open front unrounded vowel or open central unrounded vowel (depending on whether it is stressed or not), and in English either of those sounds is written as "a". All the Greek transliteration I have seen shows "α" written in Latin characters as "a". I have never heard of the letter being called "ulphu". A few other basic words including "-αξ-" are: αμάξι, αξία, μαξιλάρι, μεταξύ, μοναξιά, παξιμάδι, πράξη, σαξόφωνο, τάξη, ταξί, φαξ, φράξω, φύλαξη; of these, which would you write with "-ax-" and which with "-ux-"?

But I am also open-minded and willing to be influenced by a convincing argument. You have cited one source to support your position, which I am delighted to see. Sadly I do not have a copy of this book available to me. Can you direct me to any other reliable sources that are more accessible, perhaps on the internet? Such sources (including J. T. Pring) would be useful to update the Wikipedia page "Alpha (letter)" which currently states, "In both Classical Greek and Modern Greek, alpha represents the Open front unrounded vowel, /a/."

I trust that your statement regarding Filippos Pliatsikas' web site ("Whether it is Pliatsikas’ rendering or that of an employee one cannot know.") is not intended to undermine the status of this website as a primary notable and reliable source in this dispute.

I note that you have disregarded the use of Google counts. Yes, these are not the complete arbiter of decisions, but I must restate that these are part of the standard toolkit used on Wikipedia, and this article is part of Wikipedia. Your point that references may be ill informed or repetitions is excellent (although stating that most of these references are poor is a rather strong statement); of course the exact same argument may of course be used to state that "Lux" is incorrect. But either way, Google counts are just a tool (a useful one, mind); reliable sources remain the primary point of reference.

I hope that I have answered your points (albeit perhaps not with the reponse that you wish to hear). I wonder if you would also answer my own questions from above, which I will summarise here:

• How does "Πυξ Λαξ" sound to you in IPA? (I ask this because IPA is a recognised standard format for writing how words are pronounced, and so somewhat removes the subjective nature of bespoke transliteration.)
• I am still working overseas and my CDs are in storage so I cannot check the reversible cover of Χαρούμενοι στην πόλη των τρελών. Do you have a copy of this album to check for yourself how the band themselves write their name in Latin characters? (I will ask my relatives to check their copies too.)
• How does using "Pyx Lux" conform to Wikipedia's policy on naming conventions?

My proposal for resolving this dispute:

1. If we can establish how the band themselves write their name in Latin characters, that is what should be used for the article title. (This can be found from the cover of Χαρούμενοι στην πόλη των τρελών.)
2. Failing that, we should follow the Wikipedia policy for article titles.
3. If we cannot reconcile this difference in opinion, we should follow the Wikipedia policy on resolving disputes, which in this case would initially involve requesting a third opinion.

-Stelio (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Response 3

I have nowhere claimed that Greek α is not an “open front unrounded vowel”. I now will! It is a central vowel; ι and ε are back and ο and ου are front. (See Νεοελληνικη Γραμματικη (της Δημοτικης) by Μανωλης Τριανταφυλλιδης [Thess. 1978], p. 14.) That at least is how Greek scholars see it. See also the Wikipedia article on Modern Greek phonology: “Greek has a simple system of five vowels, /a, e, i, o, u/. The vowel /a/ is realised as open central.”

I also note that in the Wikipedia article on English Language, the u in bud is described as an “open-mid back unrounded vowel”, or a “near-open central vowel”.

However you are forgetting that this discussion is not really about the way the Greek α or the English a sound in general, but about the difference in sound between lux and lax. If you think these words sound the same then you are mispronouncing at least one of them. The same holds good if you think lax and λαξ sound the same.

When you write “I trust that your statement regarding Filippos Pliatsikas' web site is not intended to undermine the status of this website as a primary notable and reliable source in this dispute”, you are putting words in my mouth. As far as I am concerned Πυξ Λαξ is a Greek band and its official name is Πυξ Λαξ. I am not aware of any official English name for the band. The use of your preferred spelling on a web site or document does not necessarily constitute proof that your preferred spelling is official, even if it is the web site of a former member of the band, or the sleeve notes to one of their CDs.

(No, I do not have the sleeve notes to Χαρούμενοι στην πόλη των τρελών--I bought most of my Pyx Lux albums from iTunes. When I see the sleeve notes I will make a judgement as to the weight of the evidence therein. I say this bearing in mind that, for example, I have seen many CD inserts that attempt to Romanise and/or translate Greek song titles with results that can only be described as dire. Are such bad translations/transliterations the official English titles for the songs?)

Two more relevant questions to consider: Was the hyphen in the name of the band on the second and third albums official? Should we be writing Πυξ-Λαξ. Similarly, what are we to make of the use of capital Ξ on some of their CDs? Should we be writing ΠυΞ ΛαΞ? Are these official names?

Finally, I have to say that this dispute is getting tiresome. I think it is important to establish an English spelling for the band's name that gives a pronunciation close to the Greek. That is why I chose the transcription "Pyx Lux" from the available options. I had your objection covered with Reference 1: "In Greek the second part of their name is spelt "Lax", but that spelling in English gives a wrong pronunciation." Did you even notice that? --Pavlos Andronikos (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey. I see that there's a third opinion open for this page. If you follow Wiki's standard for Greek romanization, the article should actually be named either "Pix Lax" or "Pyx Lax". I prefer the former, as it seems to be the most commonly recognized name in English. If following the Wikipedia convention is an unacceptable solution (?) then I would recommend listing this page on WP:RM and getting the community involved to come to a consensus. Be warned that most people don't want to read through the huge responses above, so you'll have to succinctly list out the arguments.

On a side note, I've added a bunch of tags to this page. This article really needs a lot of work. There are no sections, no infobox and its links seem to violate WP:EL. On top of all that, it reads like one big fansite. I'm sure you guys were fans of the band, but this isn't the place to extol or glorify them. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

1) Romanisation through transliteration is not the same as anglicisation. 2) Objective assessment of an artist's significance and impact is not extolling or glorifying. Pyx Lux were a major Greek rock band, just as the Beatles were a major English rock band. It would have been fair enough for you to request that evaluations be removed; it was insulting of you to imply adulation and lack of objectivity. --Pavlos Andronikos (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As to the first, Wikipedia has a standard for converting Greek names and words into Roman characters, and this article should follow that. For the second, the text on this article does read as glorification. I removed the following text:

By any standard they were one of the truly great rock bands, but to fully appreciate their quality it is necessary to understand their Greek songs and appreciate their Greek context.

That's glorifying if I ever saw it. The tone of that text is wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry, and it also makes outrageous claims without any sort of sourcing. The following text is still in the article: "Vasilis Konstantoulakis remembers it was a beautiful night ("όμορφη βραδιά"), and remembers that Filippos Pliatsikas said they would return and play there again." Who cares? How is that not trivia? We're not here to remember every little thing every member of the band ever said. Still other text in the article, like "which firmly established their reputation in Greece" is completely unsourced. And it's like that for most of the article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Response 2 to HelloAnnyong

1) Yes, Wikipedia has a standard for converting Greek names and words into Roman characters, but it does not follow that this standard should be followed here. The Wikipedia article you cite states that “transliteration needs to be distinguished from anglicization. If there is a common anglicization of a Greek proper name, it should be used in English languge context”. We are here dealing with a proper name for which there is as yet no common anglicization. Since that is the case, and since the transliteration gives a spelling which leads to the wrong pronunciation, it is more appropriate to transcribe phonetically rather than transliterate. In that way we end up with an English version of the band’s name which sounds like the Greek.

2) I do not see how you can make judgements as to what is a glorifying outrageous claim and what is objective and disinterested assessment. Are you familiar with the material in question, or the cultural background? If I were to write: "The Rolling Stones are by any standard one of the truly great rock bands", the general consensus in the English-speaking world, and certainly amongst rock historians, that the Stones have been hugely influential and popular, and that their music was of the highest quality when they were at their best, would make it seem an objective and informed evaluation, even to someone who does not like the music of the Stones.

However, because Pyx Lux is a rock group little known outside of Greece, you assume I am glorifying and making outrageous claims. I am not, but I am writing with a strong awareness of the fact of Anglo-American cultural hegemony—a hegemony which makes it almost impossible for bands who do not use English, and /or whose music does not quite fit in with the aesthetic preferences of the English-speaking world to get the recognition they deserve outside of their homeland. I am also writing for an audience for the most part unfamiliar with the band, its music, and the musical tradition it was a part of. Some indication of the band’s significance seems to me essential. Even the Greek Wikipedia entry states that Pyx Lux were one of the best Greek bands of the last few decades. I simply left out the limiting adjective “Greek”.

But, the issue is not really your judgement about what is or is not outrageous; it is your assumption that I am a “fan” of the band and lack objectivity. That is both demeaning and insulting.

3) Finally, one man’s trivia is another’s significant or evocative detail. I think that a description of a major band’s first public appearance is hardly an insignificant detail.

--Pavlos Andronikos (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, the fact is that I came here to give an opinion about the name of the article. And I gave one. There's always someone who disagrees with the third opinion, and that's fine - but don't fight me just because I came to help.

Were you asked to help?

I can make claims to glorification because there are Wiki policies to back me up. Your Rolling Stones example is invalid because making a claim like that would be instantly reverted without reliable sources. I said that the text in the article was largely glorification, and if you read my comment above I never made any direct comments at you. I don't know if you or someone else wrote the text, and frankly I don't really care as it's irrelevant. All that matters is the text. I'm sorry if you read it as a personal thing, but it really wasn't.

You wrote; “I'm sure you guys were fans of the band, but this isn't the place to extol or glorify them”. If that’s not personal…

As to the trivia, that may be true. But adding a description of the band's first public appearance is completely unnecessary as it doesn't add anything.

There’s logic for you!

WP:INDISCRIMINATE says that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and something "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia", and text like that really has no place here.

The second statement does not follow from the first.

If you read WP:FANCRUFT, right at the top it says that fancruft is "a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject". And a description of the band's first show is only interesting to a handful of people who are really into the band. Using this article as a way to put the band on a pedestal is a definite sign of fancruft, and it's inappropriate, straight up.

Now you are showing how little you know about the Greek music scene. This was the most popular band in Greece. Your reference to a “handful of people who are really into the band” is astounding. I don’t need to put the band on a pedestal, the Greek public did that. I quote: “ No matter how hard you try to describe the phenomenon Pyx Lux, the truth is very difficult to put into words. We are talking about one of the greatest bands the Greek music scene has known, a fact which is evident not so much from the number of records sold, which is phenomenonal for a Greek group, or their longevity, but from the unique feeling which was created between Pyx Lux and their beloved public.” (“Πυξ Λαξ: Χαρούμενοι στην Πόλη των Τρελών”, 18 Ιουλίου 2003 at http://www.focusmag.gr/articles/view-article.rx?oid=27854)

I'm sorry if you felt insulting by me stating that you're a fan of the band, but if you're letting your desire to jam the article with information that you feel is interesting even though you don't have proper sourcing or are ignoring Wiki policies, then that's something that you have to deal with.

Nothing in the article which required sourcing and which was contributed by me was without ”proper sourcing”.

And while we're on the subject, a great deal of this article uses primary sources. Things like album booklets are primary sources and should be avoided in favor of secondary sources like news and magazine articles.

Again you are showing how little aware you are of Greek realities. News and magazine articles are not easy to come by here in Australia, or even in Greece, and archives usually do not go far enough back on the internet. Nor are such sources likely to be more reliable. One uses what one can get.

Either way, I really need to go through this article and do a cleanup. There is absolutely no reason that "They chose Oxford because they wanted to use the studio which Radiohead had used to record "Creep"." is in a reference (#6 as of this edit). — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It was actually in a footnote, but you changed the title of that section from Notes and References to just References, without creating a separate section for footnotes. However I note that Wikipedia expects notes and references to be together (see Referencing for beginners where it says, "The above method is simple and combines references and notes into one section." Anyway you carry on with your “slash and burn” editing, and I’ll carry on writing my article elsewhere.--Pavlos Andronikos (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)